Lecture given in the context of the MUPPLE lecture series at The Open University. If you want to download the slides please see here http://hdl.handle.net/1820/3433.

1. Structura'on of Personal
Learning Environments
Dr. Marco Kalz
Open University of the Netherlands

2. Marco Kalz
• Assistant Professor at the Centre for Learning Sciences
and Technologies (CELSTEC) of the Open University of
the Netherlands (OUNL)
• In 2001 he worked as a consultant in one of the first
professional content syndica'on companies in Europe.
• From 2002 ‐ 2003 he was involved in one of Germany’s
mobile campus ini'a'ves where he was researching the
educaLonal potenLal of mobile devices in tradiLonal
teaching formats.
• From 2004 ‐ 2006 he worked in EducaLonal Technology
group at Fernuniversität in Hagen, Germany’s distance
teaching university, where hew was involved in the
concepLon of two new study programs for educaLonal
technology.
• Since February 2006 Marco works at OUNL with a
research focus on new forms of assessment and the use
of social soDware and social media for lifelong
competence development.

3. Dr. Marco Kalz
Centre for Learning
Sciences and
Technologies
Open University of the
Netherlands
marco.kalz@ou.nl
http://twitter.com/mkalz

4. Structure of this talk
• PLE as empowerment concept
• Structurational view of PLE
• Operationalization of the theory
• Research challenges

5. Criticisms of the LMS

6. Criticisms of the LMS
Schneider, 2003

7. Criticisms of the LMS
• Administrative Functions
• Controlled Cohorts
• Teacher with all rights
• Prepared courses
• Learners consume
• Limited communication
• No design freedom
• Instruction
Schneider, 2003

8. Criticism of the LMS

10. by Steve Snodgrass@Flickr

11. Early PLE concepts
!
Werdmuller 2004

12. Early PLE concepts

13. Early PLE concepts
!
Wilson 2005

14. Turner 2008

15. A working definition
“Personal Learning Environments are learning
environments where learners can integrate
distributed information, resources and
contacts and reflect about learning progress
and learning products based on standards
and interfaces”.
Schaffert/Kalz 2010

16. PLE vs. the rest

17. The proceedings

18. Some statistics
Case studies Theoretical/Technical papers Empirical papers
3 30 3
36 papers

19. A critical look

20. Problems for empirical PLE studies
• Complex relationship between technology,
learners and learning effects
• How to avoid a technology-deterministic
view?
• PLE framework vs. PLE instantiation
• Data collection
• Comparability
• End-users?

21. A conversation

22. A conversation

23. Structuration Theory

24. Structuration Theory
Rose, 2001

25. Structuration Theory

26. Adaptive Structuration Theory
„Technology properties and contextual contingencies can play
critical roles in the outcomes of advanced information technology
use. The difficulty is that there are no clearcut patterns indicating
that some technology properties are contingencies consistently
lead to either positive or negative outcomes” (DeSanctis & Poole
1994, S. 124).

27. A structurational perspective of technology use
!
Orlikowski & Robey, 1991

28. Theoretical foundation
• Structuration theory

29. Perspective a.) Technology as a product
„Designers incorporate some of these structures into the
technology; the structures may be reproduced so as to mimic
their nontechnology counterparts, or they may be modified,
enhanced, or combined with manual procedures, thus
creating new structures within the technology. Once
complete, the technology presents an array of social
structures for possible use in interpersonal interaction,
including rules […] and resources” (DeSanctis/Poole 1994, S.
125).

30. Perspective a.) PLE frameworks
http://taolin.fbk.eu

31. Perspective a.) PLE frameworks
http://taolin.fbk.eu

32. Perspective a.) Artefact vs. use
Orlikowski & Robey, 1991

33. Perspective b.) PLE as a medium for human
action

34. Perspective b.) Facilities
• Why do PLE users choose specific
functionalities and not others?
• How do learners integrate these facilities
with other facilities?
• How stable are facilities over the time?

35. Perspective b.) Norms
• Which normative framing influences the structuration
process?
• Do norms that learner know from other learning
experiences (e.g. the authority of an expert) get re-
assured or changed?
• Which social norms emerge especially when we look
at a network of PLE in which learners self-organize
their learning support via the integration of social
networks etc.?

36. Perspective b.) Interpretative schemes
• What are assumptions &
expectations of PLE users?
• Which prior experiences do they
have with PLE or other learning
technology?
• Which implicit, tacit & explicit
knowledge do they apply?

37. Perspective c.) Institutional context of usage
University of the Basque Country/Casquero 2008

38. Perspective c.) Institutional context of usage

39. Perspective d.) Consequences of PLE usage
• What are the (unintended) consequences
of using a PLE?
• How does the attitude towards institutional
learning platforms change when
universities offer PLE platforms?
• Which events have lead to new learning
goals and opportunities?

40. Operationalizing structurational PLE studies
Process data

41. Langley, 1999

42. Operationalizing structurational PLE studies
Pozzebon & Pinsonneault, 2001

43. Operationalizing structurational PLE studies
Pozzebon & Pinsonneault, 2001

44. Research challenges
• The competent actor
• Which effects are we analyzing (macro-level of
learning or micro-level)?
• Generalizability problems
• Reinforcment of structures vs. transformation
• Which methods for process data?
• Interrelations between widgets

46. PLE

47. PLE
Research

48. PLE
Research
Structuration
Theory

49. PLE
Research
Structuration
Theory Structuration
Theory & IT

50. PLE
Research
Structuration
Theory Structuration
Theory & IT
Analysis
relations

51. PLE
Research
Structuration
Theory Structuration
Theory & IT
Analysis
relations Methods

52. PLE
Research
Structuration
Theory Structuration
Theory & IT
Analysis
relations Methods
Challenges

53. PLE
Empirical PLE
Research studies
Structuration
Theory Structuration
Theory & IT
Analysis
relations Methods
Challenges

54. Thank you for your attention
Dr. Marco Kalz
marco.kalz@ou.nl
http://twitter.com/mkalz
http://www.marcokalz.de
http://celstec.org